The Theory and practice of democracy

Research on youth civic engagement often sees the everyday lives of young people as barriers to civic engagement.  Recent qualitative approaches have drawn attention to the civic and political dimensions of young people’s everyday lives. This is a crucial insight, but cannot—by itself—answer a key question: Just how is it that everyday experience can be transformed into civic engagement?  I argue that Dewey's theory of experience makes two key contributions towards answering this question. First, Dewey’s situational understanding of experience directs us to the concrete conditions everyday life as the necessary groundwork and starting point for civic engagement.  Second, Dewey’s concept of reflective experience helps us understand how taken for granted assumptions about political and social life can be transformed into more active forms of engagement.  I illustrate this argument by drawing on selected findings from a qualitative study of young people’s experience in Public Achievement, a civic engagement initiative

This paper presented at The Kondiaf conference 2017  is a survey of the era of populism  in the US. By retracing  the genesis, rise, and fall of the  movement of agrarian  in the late nineteenth and early and  twentieth century it elucidates the historical background of a political concept of dubious renown..

This Applied Research Project is an exploratory study seeking to establish a theoretical framework for long-term disaster recovery efforts. Through the use of qualitative interviews conducted with senior managers of national nonprofit agencies working on Hurricane Katrina recovery, this research first tests the feasibility of Jane Addams' social democratic theory and ethics for use as a theoretical framework for long-term disaster recovery. The research also explores the degree to which nonprofit organizations already implement elements of Addams' theory and ethics in their long-term disaster recovery programs. This is tested through the administration of a questionnaire with case managers working with Katrina survivors in Houston, Texas.

The findings of this research strongly support the use of Jane Addams' social democratic theory and ethics as a theoretical framework for long-term disaster recovery efforts. Not only do leaders of nonprofit organizations view the Addams framework as feasible, but case managers report that their organizations are already implementing the main tenets of Addams' theory and ethics in their daily provision of services to Katrina survivors. Therefore, this research suggests that the long-term disaster recovery community may immediately look to Addams' social democratic theory and ethics as a theoretical framework upon which to construct its efforts, both for Hurricane Katrina long-term recovery and for that of future disasters.

Liberal political theorists often argue that justice requires limits on policy outcomes, limits delineated by substantive rights. Distinct from this project is a body of literature dedicated to elaborating on the meaning of democracy in procedural terms. In this article, I offer an alternative to the traditional divide between procedural theories of democracy and substantive theories of justice; I call this the ‘value theory of democracy’. I argue that the democratic ideal is fundamentally about a core set of values (political autonomy, equality of interests, and reciprocity) with both procedural and substantive implications. Further, I contend that limits on policy outcomes can be newly understood as part of the democratic ideal.

Note: This is a relatively early version of what eventually became my book, Happiness, Democracy, and the Cooperative Movement: The Radical Utilitarianism of William Thompson (2014, SUNY Press).

William Thompson (1775-1833), best known as author of "An Inquiry into the Principles for the Distribution of Wealth Most Conducive to Human Happiness" and described by Bentham as a “disciple” at one point, is not much studied by utilitarian scholars. He is of interest in utilitarian studies, however, because he took Bentham’s basic premises—the greatest happiness of the greatest number as well as the subsidiary principles of security, subsistence, abundance and equality—in very different direction. What Thompson’s work demonstrates is the flexibility of the principle of utility, and the range of possibilities for utilitarian theory: Where Bentham is seen as one of the great contributors to liberal capitalist theory, Thompson is considered one of the founders of socialism. A reading of Thompson provides a new perspective on the politics of utilitarianism, bringing in ‘the social’ and recognizing the important role social institutions play in shaping the conditions within which we seek our happiness. Thompson’s significance stands out best in contrast to Bentham, so the paper examines elements of Bentham’s theory—the role of well-being in his thought, its relationship to his hedonism, and the importance of the concepts of security and wealth—that are not often examined.

Ever since its nomination as the word of the year 2016, the concept of " post-truth " continues to agitate public opinion. It also poses a significant challenge for the theory of democracy. The most common response to this challenge, both public and theoretical, is a moralistic appeal for the restoration of truth in politics. Instead of solving the problem, however, such an attitude seems certain to aggravate it even more.

Among liberal democracies, India stands out as a polity that broadly defines the right to free speech to include the right to information in elections, and has been at the forefront of innovative transparency reforms. Although the United States is often represented as an ideal democracy, mass participation in the U.S. is limited by the particular nature of its representative democracy, and negative rights-based campaign finance reform regime that limits opportunities for meaningful participation. Drawing on insights from India, this article advances a “positive rights participatory model” of speech based on the Indian Supreme Court’s right to information jurisprudence, an active role of the state in facilitating participation, and strong oppositional state institutions that check state power and foster robust civil society and social movements. The article critically challenges conceptions of the public sphere in contemporary liberal democracy as a framework for analyzing the Indian...

Note: For a more thorough examination of the topic of this paper, please see my book, Happiness, Democracy, and the Cooperative Movement: The Radical Utilitarianism of William Thompson (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2014).

This paper contrasts the democratic theories of Jeremy Bentham and William Thompson.Bentham is mostly known for his theory of utility, but although he held anti-democratic beliefs for a period he eventually became a powerful advocate of representative democracy and even universalsuffrage. William Thompson, whom Bentham described as a “disciple” at one point, took Bentham’sutilitarian premises to craft a very different theory: While Bentham’s theory fits well into themainstream of contemporary democratic theory, Thompson’s work can be seen as providing someof the foundations for what evolved into radical democracy. The differences between them arise,I argue, because Thompson conceptualizes happiness differently from Bentham. The individualisminherent in Bentham’s hedonism leads to a theory that is protective and concerned only with theformal institutions of the state. This is contrasted with the social nature of Thompson’seudaemonism, which leads to an egalitarian and participatory theory that extends democratic practices to all levels of social institutions.

Το κείμενο αυτό έχει δυο στόχους: μια προβληματοποίηση και μια ανασκευή. Η προβληματοποίηση αφορά στο –κατά το μάλλον ή ήττον συνεκτικό— γνωστικό πρίσμα μέσα από το οποίο αντιλαμβανόμαστε το αίτημα της δημοκρατικής εμβάθυνσης, της «ριζοσπαστικής δημοκρατίας» –μια εννοιολόγηση που έχει τις καταβολές της στο δυναμικό χώρο των συλλογικών δράσεων και των κοινωνικών κινημάτων. Όσο για την ανασκευή, αυτή αφορά στο αυτονόητο: επιχειρεί να προτείνει εναλλακτικές σε όλα όσα η προβληματοποίηση αναδεικνύει. Σημείο εκκίνησης αποτελούν τα προβλήματα με τα οποία βρίσκεται αντιμέτωπη η σύγχρονη φιλελεύθερη δημοκρατία. Όπως γλαφυρά υποστήριξε ο πρόσφατα εκλιπών Peter Mair, βιώνουμε μια μαζική «δημοκρατική απίσχνανση», μια διαδικασία αποψίλωσης της δημοκρατικής λειτουργίας από ζωτικά χαρακτηριστικά της που –μεταξύ άλλων— περιλαμβάνει αποδυνάμωση και οργανωτική υποχώρηση των κομμάτων· αποστασιοποίηση των ψηφοφόρων από τεκταινόμενα στην κεντρική πολιτική σκηνή, ταυτόχρονα κυνισμό και διαφθορά.

Εκτός από την πυκνή απόδοση του καθενός από τα είκοσι κεφάλαια που τον αποτελούν τον τόμο Η δημοκρατική λειτουργία σε καμπή: προκλήσεις και απειλές στον πρώιμο 21ο αιώνα, το Εισαγωγικό κεφάλαιο «Το πρόβλημα της δημοκρατίας» καταθέτει έναν γνωστικό-αναλυτικό πλαίσιο με άξονες τη διερεύνηση των παρακάτω ερωτημάτων: Α. Γιατί μας ενδιαφέρει η συζήτηση περί δημοκρατίας; Β. Πώς την ορίζουμε; Γ. Ποια η γενεαλογία της και πώς μπορεί να αντιμετωπιστεί το πρόβλημα της σημερινής της απίσχανσης;

In establishing an anarchic framework for understanding public space as a vision for radical democracy, this article proceeds as a theoretical inquiry into how an agonistic public space might become the basis of emancipation. Public space is presented as an opportunity to move beyond the technocratic elitism that often characterizes both civil societies and the neoliberal approach to development, and is further recognized as the battlefield on which the conflicting interests of the world's rich and poor are set. Contributing to the growing recognition that geographies of resistance are relational, where the “global” and the “local” are understood as co-constitutive, a radical democratic ideal grounded in material public space is presented as paramount to repealing archic power in general, and neoliberalism’s exclusionary logic in particular.

Les régimes semi-autoritaires ont souvent été décrits sous l'angle de leur organisation, formelle et informelle ; on sait qu'ils autorisent la liberté d'association, le pluralisme politique, que les médias libéralisés y façonnent un espace public et qu'en même temps, des dispositifs non officiels rendent l'alternance pratiquement impossible. La démocratie et ses élections constituent une façade qui confère au régime sa légitimité sans l'exposer au risque de la compétition politique. Ce qu'il importe de documenter plus précisément. aujourd'hui, c'est la manière dont ces transformations institutionnelles (nouveaux pouvoirs locaux, élections, liberté d'association et de la presse...) rendent possibles et façonnent un espace imaginaire et pratique au sein duquel s'élabore une critique du pouvoir établi. La question est donc de savoir comment s'opèrent les oppositions de consciences et de pratiques, les insubordinations et les révoltes vis-à-vis du pouvoir dans un contexte où leur légitimité n'est pas remise en cause mais où elles aboutissent rarement aux résultats espérés. Qu'advient-il des oppositions frustrées ? Comment les transformations institutionnelles, même neutralisées, insufflent-elles un dynamisme politique ? Et quel dynamisme ? L'objectif de cet ouvrage est d'apporter quelques éléments de réponses à ces questions en partant d'études de cas menées au Burkina Faso. Outre une contribution à l'analyse des régimes semi-autoritaires, ce livre propose un aperçu à la fois synthétique et détaillé de la situation politique du pays.

The task to reshape governments in the countries confronted with the Arab Spring prompts the question whether there are necessary conditions to realize a stable society that simultaneously seeks to eliminate the elements that have led to the uprisings. Acknowledging some constitutional rights seems indispensable in such a process. I argue that such a state of affairs is indeed the case, at least now that the ‘old’ justifications to differentiate between people do not suffice anymore. That is not to say that the countries involved will have identical laws in each respect, but merely that a common basis has to be realized, manifested in political and legal equality, so this given does not derogate from the fact that each country’s specific legislation needs to be shaped in the light of its own history. Such a basis has no ‘moral’ character, but is simply a necessary condition to prevent sedition.

This paper sets out an ambitious critique of contemporary political scientists, political historians and others concerned with the history of democracy. It argues that overwhelmingly the history of democracy relies on an overtly Eurocentric narrative that emphasizes the keystone moments of Western civilization. According to this narrative, democracy has a clear trajectory that can be traced from ancient experiments with participatory government in Greece and to a lesser extent in Rome, through the development of the British parliament, the American Declaration of Independence and the French Revolution, and then finally onto the triumphant march of the liberal model of democracy across the globe over the last 200 years, particularly under Western tutelage. Histories of democracy that focus exclusively on these events not only privilege Europe and its successful colonies, but also miss the broader human story of the struggle for and achievement of democracy.

This presents us with a distinct challenge. For those whose heritage does not include a direct link to Greek assemblies, the American Congress or the French Revolution, the 'standard history of democracy' provides a distant and exclusive narrative, which limits one's ability to embrace democracy. This paper concludes by noting that, as democracy spreads out across the world today, political scientists not only need to break down the intellectual orthodoxy that democracy has exclusively Western roots, but also to embrace a more global view of democracy as a political practise that has been present at various times and in sometimes unfamiliar ways in the complex histories and rich cultural traditions of most of the people of the earth.

Éste artículo tiene como objeto hacer una re-exposición de la teoría política de Baruch Espinosa (1632-1677) a la luz de su ontología –entendida ésta como una ontología materialista. Por lo tanto, se hará una interpretación materialista de la teoría política éste filósofo, desde un acercamiento al «Materialismo Filosófico» de Gustavo Bueno –específicamente, desde su filosofía política, como «materialismo político». Para esto, exploraremos brevemente ciertas ideas de su Tratado Político –teniendo en cuenta, desde luego, la Ética y el Tratado Teológico-Político. Lidiaremos con ideas como «derecho natural», «Estado» o «Libertad», u otras ideas que irán saliendo a través de estas y que junto a la construcción de unas, dialécticamente criticará y destruirá otras –como «Pueblo», «Voluntad», «monarquía absoluta» etc.

(The Political Ontology of Espinosa)
The aim of this article is the reexposition of Baruch Espinosa's (1632-1677) political theory, in the light of his ontology –understood as a materialist ontology. Therefore, we will make a materialist interpretation of the political theory of this philosopher, from an approach to Gustavo Bueno's «Philosophical Materialism» –specifically, from his political philosophy, as a «political materialism». For that goal, we will briefly explore certain ideas from his Political Treatise –of course, with the help of other works, like the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus and the Ethics. We will deal with ideas like «natural law», «State», «Freedom», and other ideas that may arise from those and in which construction, they dialectically criticize and destroy others –v.g., «People», «Will», «absolute monarchy» and so on.

In the philosophy of education, the concepts of ‘democracy’ and ‘education’ are closely related. Traditionally, democracy – the self-rule of the people – has been justified through education of some sort, from the Greek paideia to contemporary citizenship training programmes. Education makes the difference between mob rule and legitimate majority rule. However, contemporary conceptions of ‘democracy education’ tend to emphasise the integrative and social aspects of democracy (Dewey’s ‘democracy as a mode of associated living’) at the cost of its political aspects (democracy as a form of rule). A different approach is found in the philosophy of Cornelius Castoriadis, who sees in democracy the ability to question the existing institutions and create new ones. Since democracy thus understood is without guarantees, the cultivation of citizens’ responsibility and self-limitation is of the utmost importance. By putting education at the centre of his political thought, Castoriadis situates himself in the great tradition from Plato to the Enlightenment. The paper gives an introduction to Castoriadis’ philosophy, focussing on education in a democracy and its ontological premises. Opposed to what he called “traditional thought”, Castoriadis sought to elucidate the role of the imagination, autonomy and creation in order to conceptualise the creation of something entirely new.

Many of the works on Middle Eastern democracy, whether from the neo-Orientalist camp or from those who avidly detail and support the region’s democratic developments, are based on a Western conception of democracy. This is the result of a discursive lineage that has its antecedents in the erroneous belief that democracy miraculously sprang out of Greek civilization in the fifth century B.C. This superior system of governance was later utilized by the Roman Empire and arguably gave rise to those great moments in the construction and propagation of Western civilization. Democracy, in its modern, representative form, resurfaced later as a result of the major social upheavals that transformed Europe and America during the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. However, many of the scientific methods, literary motifs and political systems that have formed the major cultural discourses of Western civilization ironically have their origins in the ancient Afro-Asiatic world. By placing the emphasis on the common heritage of both parts of wider Eurasia in the urban revolution of the Bronze Age, these scholars are not only able to undo the longstanding binaries between East and West, but are also able to gain new insights into the origins of some of humankind’s greatest achievements. Specifically, as is detailed below, these achievements include the earliest political mechanisms for human governance, “primitive democracy.”

For a research project I engaged in from 2004-2007, I gathered and analysed statements made by representatives of Islamist terrorist movements on the Internet andcompared key themes of their ideology (such as "democracy", "capitalism", "globalization", "colonialism" and "underdevelopment") to the writings and ideology of authors in various traditions of Christian "political theology". In this paper, it is being established that there are clear similarities in the socio-political analysis advanced by Christian political and liberation theologians and representatives of Islamist terrorist movements and radical Islam, respectively. The paper also offers a short history and extended discussion of the concept of "political theology" and elaborates on radical Islam's understanding of theology and politics. Primary and secondary literature on Christian and Islamic political and liberation theologies and radical Islam are being reviewed (including the most recent writings on "political theology" emanating from, mainly leftist, theory circles in Europe and the US). In an attempt to expand the term "political theology" to cover the socio-political analysis, arguments, and ideology of radical Islam, anti-liberalism is revealed as the single most important factor underlying all political theology. The argument is made that being anti-liberal means being (at least potentially) anti-democratic as well. A discussion of future lines of academic inquiry opens up the possibility of a common definition or framework covering all forms of political and liberation theologies and asks whether comparative political theology may be the ultimate political theory.

Includes Lukács' book Literature and Democracy (1947) in full, along with five supplementary essays and lectures published between 1946 and 1948; with introduction, annotations, and biographical and historical glossary.  These appear for the first time in English; many have not been translated even into German; several pieces are "occasional" works published only in pamphlets or other ephemeral form.

This article draws on the political philosophy of John Dewey as one way to re-think the relationship between deliberative and participatory democracy. Rather than focusing on differences, Dewey's ideal of democracy allows us to bridge these two theories while still being attentive to the tensions between them. In particular, Dewey helps us conceptualize deliberative and participatory practices as distinctive yet complementary phases within a larger circuit of cooperative inquiry. To illustrate the argument, a case study of one democratic experiment that effectively combined different forms of practice is presented. In doing so, it is contended that we might be able to recover and incorporate some of the more radical features of participatory democracy into deliberative practices. Participatory theory's focus on political action and structural inequality, in addition to deliberation, as essential to citizen-centered democratic practice is specifically emphasized.

The article is divided to three parts: (1) underpinning
principles; (2) troubling concerns on the Internet:
terror, child sex offence and hate speech; and (3) exploration
of a new paradigm for the future of the Internet
called CleaNet©. CleaNet© will be sensitive to prevailing
cultural norms of each and every society and
will be clean of content that the society deems to be
dangerous and antisocial. Netusers, with the co-operation
of ISPs and Web-hosting companies, will together
decide which content will be considered illegitimate.
That content will be excluded from CleaNet©.

How are cooperatives different from traditional capitalist enterprises? Are these differences more than superficial, and is there any deeper, political significance to them? I argue that what makes cooperatives different is their basis in an ideology that emphasizes social institutions, which stands in stark contrast to the individualism implicit in capitalism. The case for cooperatives on the basis of this ideology was perhaps best articulated in the 1820s by William Thompson, one of the leaders of the cooperative movement. Thompson’s theory is contrasted with that of Jeremy Bentham, from whom Thompson takes many central concepts—although he takes them in a very different direction. Bentham’s and Thompson’s theories diverge because of their different understandings about what constitutes happiness and “the greatest happiness of the greatest number.” Bentham equates happiness with pleasure, an individualistic concept, while Thompson argues that it happiness is best understood as well-being, which is much more of a social condition. This difference leads the two to very different conclusions about the underlying principles of social institutions. Ultimately, it is shown how Thompson’s theory can be understood as providing an ideological foundation for the cooperatives as defined by the International Cooperative Alliance, which raises some questions and poses some challenges for cooperatives today.

El presente trabajo tiene como objetivo hacer un análisis de la utilidad analítica del término «democracia» derivado de la obra de Hannah Arendt. Se trata de captar los alcances de los argumentos de sus argumentos filosóficos, usualmente utilizados para justificar una reforma de la democracia contemporánea. Una revisión de su trabajo permite precisar que contrario a lo usualmente señalado- apenas desarrolló analíticamente el término. Se hace un análisis de definición  del término, se identifica lo relativo a su uso extensivo y se inserta en la red conceptual de su arquitectura teórica. Finalmente, se rescata la actualidad de su propuesta considerando el desarrollo sobre las formas de gobierno y sus consideraciones acerca de los mismos, el carácter contingente de la acción política y la influencia del liderazgo y la captación de los principios orientadores de la acción política.

Palabras clave: Hannah Arendt; democracia; política; república; participación.

This paper explores the effects of civil society’s involvement in the Tunisian democratic transition through a case study on its contributions to the constitution drafting process. Tunisia gained widespread international attention following its popular uprising against authoritarian leader Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali and successful transition to democracy. Many, however, have dismissed Tunisia’s triumph as a lucky break aided by the country’s small size, religious and ethnic homogeneity, pre-existing liberal social values, and “relatively moderate” Islamist party. Those focused on such “Tunisian exceptionalism” conclude that the country’s transition has little to teach other countries in political flux.
This research contests that notion, and proposes that Tunisia’s transition has succeeded instead due to the presence of a strong and collaborative civil society, which grew discreetly throughout periods of authoritarianism and has matured in the post-revolution years. This paper specifically analyzes the debate concerning women’s rights in the constitution as an example of state-civil society interaction during the transitional period. The efforts of actors within Tunisia’s vibrant civil society – including activists, non-governmental organizations, unions, and the media – significantly changed the outcomes of political decision making in the transitional period. Examining the processes and outcomes of Tunisia’s transition allows not only for better insight into the vital role of civil society in Tunisian politics and culture, but also offers a new understanding of the potential influence of non-state institutions on the evolution of the state. This case study proposes several lessons that should be used to inform decision making in future projects of peacebuilding and political change in the Middle East and throughout the world.

Background: European and national policies on citizenship education stimulate the implementation of a participative approach to citizenship education, fostering active citizenship. The reason given for fostering active citizenship is the decline of participation in political and social life jeopardizing democracy. Schools have to implement a participative approach through stimulating participation within school and its direct environment, while fostering a certain kind of political literacy, critical thinking and analysing skills, certain kind of values, attitudes and behaviours. Purpose: The purpose of this article is to problematise the participative approach of citizenship education advocated by policy makers and several researchers. In order to do so, four different categories that citizenship education has to cover will be theoretically and empirically analysed: political knowledge, critical thinking, values, attitudes and behaviours, and active participation. The practical implications for educational practice will be discussed.
Source of evidence: Two types of documents have been analysed: The 2005 and 2012 Eurydice reports and the 2009 International Civic and Citizenship Education Study (ICCS) research reports. These documents are exemplary of the mainstream idea of citizenship and citizenship education held by policy makers and many researchers on citizenship education. The Eurydice reports have analysed citizenship education in more than 30 countries while promoting a certain concept of citizenship education, namely active citizenship. The ICCS has researched pupils’ competencies on citizenship education and school practices in 38 countries. It is an interesting source because it had to define and operationalise the different constituents of citizenship education.
Main argument: In jurisdictions where citizenship education is compulsory, schools have to implement this participative approach and account for it. We suggest that this educational approach to citizenship education may be problematic because each aspect – political literacy, critical thinking and analysing skills, values, attitudes and behaviours, and active participation – presents challenging demands on the curricu- lum, head teachers and teachers. We argue three kinds of constraints that make the implementation of such a participative approach unrealistic: (1) insufficient specialist knowledge on the part of teachers and head teachers, (2) time and budget constraints and (3) an overcrowded curriculum. We demonstrate that the broad range of themes that political literacy has to cover demand specific knowledge on the part of teachers regarding each of the themes. Then we argue that critical thinking skills are hard to learn and demand continuous practice. Implementing and sustaining active participation structure within school and in the direct environment, again, require specific skills and curricular organisation. The demands made by values, attitudes and behaviours on teachers and pupils could not be explored because of the lack of conceptual clarity in the documentation under scrutiny.
Conclusion: The feasibility of a participative approach to citizenship education has been questioned through theoretical and empirical critical analysis. On this basis, we suggest that the scope of the citizenship education curriculum should be reconsidered or that teacher and head teacher should receive the necessary and adequate training, and support to implement such a participatory structure.

This paper presents the relation of Kenneth Arrow's 1950 'Impossibility Theorem' to the idea of the 'Condorcet's Paradox'. It shows that Arrow's theorem indeed theoretically proves that democracy is either arbitrary or impossible, and creates a typology of four exhaustive cases to show that this conclusion holds. Nevertheless, this is no cause for despair: seeing Arrow's theorem as representing a trade-off between stability, universal admissibility or non-dictatorship, it renders important insights for constitution-designers that are currently under-utilised.

ENGLISH:
The concept of „negotiation democracy“ applies to political systems, in which substantial decisions are made not by majority voting but by political bargaining. Such bargaining processes can take place between political parties or between governments and interest associations or between constitutional parts of governments as well as in a configurative interplay of these arenas. Being a multi-dimensional phenomenon, negotiation democracy cannot be fully understood by abstract single features like constitutional vetoes, maximum winning coalitions or the unanimity principle. To understand its mode of operation requires multidimensional concepts, which grasp the configurative interplay of negotiation practices within specific political systems. Empirical analysis shows that the basic elements of negotiation democracies - party-political concordance, neo-corporatist intermediation and constitutional veto structures - are not compatible with each other. For instance constitutional vetoes can discourage societal associations to get involved in neo-corporatist negotiations with governments. If the distinct dimensions or arenas of negotiated democracy are linked in an additive manner, as in recent democratic theory as well as in empirical research, such systemic interactions are no longer visible and the concept of „negotiated democracy“ tends to lose its explanatory power.


DEUTSCH
Der Begriff Verhandlungsdemokratie bezeichnet politische Systeme, in denen wesentliche Entscheidungen nicht mit Stimmenmehrheit, sondern durch Aushandeln getroffen werden. Solche Aushandlungsprozesse können zwischen politischen Parteien, zwischen Regierung und gesellschaftlichen Verbänden oder zwischen Regierungsorganen sowie im Wechselspiel dieser unterschiedlichen Verhandlungsarenen stattfinden. Verhandlungsdemokratien lassen sich nicht eindimensional durch wenige abstrakte Merkmale wie konstitutionelle Veto-Strukturen, maximale Gewinnkoalitionen oder das Einstimmigkeitsprinzip beschreiben und in ihrer Betriebsweise erklären. Vielmehr bedarf es mehrdimensionaler Analysekonzepte, die das konfigurative Zusammenwirken von Einzelelementen der Verhandlungsdemokratie in einem jeweiligen politischen System erfassen. Die empirische Analyse zeigt, dass die drei wichtigsten Ausprägungen der Verhandlungsdemokratie - parteipolitische Konkordanz, neokorporatistische Verbändeeinbindung und konstitutionelle Vetostrukturen – wechselseitige Inkompatibilitäten aufweisen. So können konstitutionelle Vetostrukturen gesellschaftliche Verbände daran hindern, sich in neokorpatistische Verhandlungen mit Regierungen einzulassen, die in ihrer Handlungsfähigkeit geschwächt sind. Wenn die Dimensionen beziehungsweise Arenen der Verhandlungsdemokratie additiv verknüpft werden, wie es in der Demokratietheorie und in der empirischen Demokratieforschung zunehmend geschieht, geraten solche systemischen Interaktionseffekte aus dem Blick, und dadurch verliert das Konzept seine Erklärungskraft.

Democracy, as a just form of self-rule and collective self-limitation, rests on education. Democracy needs education to work well, while education makes democracy a legitimate form of (self-)rule. To elucidate these connections, the dissertation investigates the ideas of the philosopher and psychoanalyst Cornelius Castoriadis. Key concepts, such as 'the imaginary', 'individual and collective autonomy', paideia and 'the social-historical' are drawn into a reconstructed notion of 'education in a democracy'.

Castoriadis would always talk of  'individual and collective autonomy' as one concept. In trying to clarify why this is so, his original political philosophy and ontology is unfolded, with marked differences to those underpinning well-known traditions like political liberalism and communitarianism. In contrast to widespread views on education in a democracy, which in Western type societies are arguably geared towards integration and stability in a multicultural setting, Castoriadis’s thought is orientated towards politicization, societal creation and change. His concepts are developed further in the thesis, to form a theoretically more robust notion of political paideia (or Bildung) which embodies individual and collective subjectivity, creation, and radical interrogation of the instituted social structures.

Analizaremos en este artículo el período de gobierno correspondiente a la caída de la dictadura stronista (que se extendió entre 1954-1989) para proponer un ejercicio teórico en el que repasaremos las categorías de transición utilizadas para el caso paraguayo.
Plantearemos muy brevemente algunas de las máximas explicativas de lo que podríamos denominar dos escuelas de estudios sobre la democracia y la Transición. Una, pone el acento en los procesos cuantificables, en los requisitos previos y en las condiciones “medibles” que la democracia debe tener en cuanto entramado institucional y forma de elección de autoridades (con el debido respeto a las garantías, derechos y obligaciones sociales y estatales). La otra, tiene una postura menos condescendiente de este régimen, reconociendo su carácter muchas veces impuesto como única salida y muchas veces planteado como neutral (o como “democracia a secas”) cuando en realidad siempre se supo democracia liberal.
Veremos que la mayor cantidad de trabajos realizados sobre el proceso transicional en Paraguay, giran en torno a definiciones más cercanas a la primera categoría. Es decir, la Transición inició con el Golpe (“desde arriba”) y duró hasta que la consolidación hizo su aparición en alguna elección que cumplió con los requisitos de transparencia esperados. En este artículo proponemos un debate dinámico con estas posturas.